Castlemona Hotel - Registered Building Inspections

Summary

A request was made for inspection reports of the Castlemona Hotel under Registration of Buildings legislation, to which the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture disclosed a list of site visits and available reports while noting that hard copy files were temporarily inaccessible due to renovations.

Key Facts

• The authority confirmed holding information regarding site visits to the Castlemona Hotel since 2011.
• Hard copy registration files were moved to temporary storage due to renovations at Murray House, delaying a full search.
• An update in February 2018 confirmed that after searching the files, only one report from August 2012 was found in the hard copy file.
• A scheduled site visit in May 2013 did not take place because the Caretaker was unavailable.
• Personal information in the released reports was redacted under section 25 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015.

Data Disclosed

• 2017-10-09
• 2017-10-25
• 2018-02-15
• 2011
• 2012
• 2013
• 2014
• 2015
• 2016
• 2017
• 7th August 2012
• 31st May 2013
• 0 recorded site visits in 2011
• 2 recorded site visits in 2012
• 1 recorded visit in 2013
• 0 recorded visits in 2014
• 2 site visits were carried out in 2015
• 7 site visits were carried out in 2016
• 2 site visits were carried out in 2017
• section 25
• IM106207I

Exemptions Cited

• Section 25 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (Personal information)

Data Tables (1)

Data Tables (reformatted)

Full Response Text

Page 1 of 1

 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture

  Rheynn Chymmyltaght, Bee as Eirinys

15th February 2018

Dear

Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (FoIA) Ref: IM106207I, Castle Mona Hotel Registered Building Inspections Further to our response dated 25th October 2017 we would like to provide you with an update on your request. You asked: How many inspections of the external and internal of the Castlemona Hotel have been carried to ensure it is being maintained as required by the provisions of the Registration of Buildings legislation, if so, can you please provide a copy of such Reports.

Updated Response to your Request

At the time of our last response Murray House was undergoing renovation and therefore the hard copy registration file had been moved to temporary storage and we were not available to search it.
I can confirm the hard copy file has now been searched and the updated response is as follows: Since 2011 the only report on the hard copy file we have found is the site visit dated 7th August 2012 and this detail was included in the previous FOI response dated 25th October 2017.

A site visit was arranged by our Conservation Officer on 31st May 2013, but this did not take place as the Caretaker was unavailable.

Yours sincerely

Corporate Services Directorate, Thie Slieau Whallian, Foxdale Road,
St John’s, Isle of Man, IM4 3AS Fax no (01624 685851 Email: defa@gov.im
www.gov.im

Quoting Ref: IM106207I Your Ref:

Page 1 of 2

 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture

  Rheynn Chymmyltaght, Bee as Eirinys

25th October 2017

Dear

Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (FoIA) Ref: IM106207I, Castle Mona Hotel Registered Building Inspections Thank you for your request dated 9th October 2017. You asked: How many inspections of the external and internal of the Castlemona Hotel have been carried to ensure it is being maintained as required by the provisions of the Registration of Buildings legislation, if so, can you please provide a copy of such Reports.

Response to your Request

Our aim is to provide information wherever possible and in this instance we confirm that we do hold some information to answer your request. Since 2011, the number of recorded site visits to the Castle Mona Hotel is as follows: - 0 recorded site visits in 2011 2 recorded site visits in 2012 1 recorded visit in 2013 0 recorded visits in 2014 2 site visits were carried out in 2015 7 site visits were carried out in 2016 2 site visits were carried out in 2017

Although a number of site visits have been carried out, only some have resulted in a report being generated and these reports are available at Appendix 1. Personal information contained within these reports has been redacted as it’s absolutely exempt from release under section 25 of the FoIA. Please be advised that, due to the current renovation of Murray House, hard copy registration files have been moved to temporary storage and are currently not available to search. These files may contain more information relating to these visits, but until the files are returned, we cannot search them or provide any

Corporate Services Directorate, Thie Slieau Whallian, Foxdale Road,
St John’s, Isle of Man, IM4 3AS Tel no (01624) 686576 Fax no (01624 685851 Email: defa@gov.im
www.gov.im

Quoting Ref: IM106207I Your Ref:

Page 2 of 2

further information. The renovations are likely to be concluded and the files returned by the end of December 2017, at which time we will search them and respond to you. Your right to request a review If you are unhappy with this response to your Freedom of Information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post to the sender of this letter at the address above. An electronic version of the relevant complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://www.gov.im/about-the- government/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-review-request. If you would like a paper version of the complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact us and we will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.
If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1 Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act; or 2 Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.

In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision. More detailed information on your rights to review is on the Information Commissioner’s website at: https://www.inforights.im/

If anything is unclear, or if you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Further information about Freedom of Information requests can be found: https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/freedom-of-information

Yours sincerely Site Report: Castle Mona. Routine inspection of internal fabric of the property 7th August 2012 Time scheduled: 3pm – 5pm (actual time spent on site 3-3.50pm

On meeting , of the Castle Mona,

informed me that although the meeting was arranged, he had a further meeting which he had to attend and could only therefore afford me 30 minutes to inspect the property. This I felt was insufficient time given the scale of my inspection. (Prior to the inspection informed me that and had also recently carried out an inspection and took photographs). directed me around the property covering what he considered to be the essential elements in question whilst talking about water ingress damage to various areas and how difficult it was to respond to such ‘leaks’ when they occurred. Having said this, he acknowledged that such water ingress was down to issues with the roof and associated areas such as valleys etc, however, full remedial works would be prohibitively expensive. I therefore asked to view the condition of the roof in order to assess its condition. This, I was told, was not possible however as due to pigeons entering the tower (according to

) this area had become a health issue. My thoughts on the matter were that the tower windows should be secured (see exterior photograph of tower) and the area cleaned so allowing access to the roof. According to , access to the roof was either from the outside (ladders?) or by means of climbing through a window! As we progressed through the property explained that the damaged door frames/doors was down to; (a) The insurance ‘people’ insisting no internal doors were locked and as the electronic pass cards no longer worked, the doors were subsequently forced open. (b) The police and fire brigade using the building for exercises which also necessitated the forced entry of rooms. (c) The receivers had removed various items without due care. Throughout the building there was a pervading smell of damp – despite the heating being on intermittently (for how long?) according to . However, given the ingress of water which had buckled the parquet flooring in the ground floor ball room, in other areas of water ingress, carpets were largely still in place. In certain areas these had been removed in the immediate vicinity of the water damage. Due to the false ceilings throughout it was extremely difficult to assess the original fabric of the property with only small glimpse possible of the arches and covings being made through various access points. In certain areas throughout, the false ceilings displayed damage due to water ingress in addition to original lathe and plaster ceilings having collapsed due to the same. In one upper bedroom, water entering from the roof had ‘pooled’ (according to

and subsequently destroyed the plaster ceiling and wall section before working its way down and through the lower floors. This was despite assurances that the caretaker conducted regular tours around the property each week. Again, I mentioned the need to assess the roof and valleys. (It was interesting to note that the radiator attached to the stud wall had also fallen off and was resting on the floor still – with the pipe work still attached! See photographic evidence) Following my brief assessment of the interior I was permitted to photograph the exterior (front elevation only) of the property before the caretaker also had to leave before 4pm. In conclusion, I consider a second, more comprehensive inspection be carried out and one which permits access to the tower and roof in order to fully assess the condition of the roof. By their own admission, maintenance is an on-going problem/issue. If access to the roof cannot easily be made in order to carry out preventative maintenance then insuring such access should be a priority.

1 DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM FOR DEPARTMENT MEMBER’S CONSIDERATION

To:

Mr L Skelly MHK, Department Member for Planning and Building Control Copy:
From:

Subject: The Registered Building RB 82 Castle Mona Hotel, the Promenade, Douglas

Date:
12th June

2013

1 Introduction 1.1 To inform the Member of the current concerns regarding the condition of the building and to seek approval for action to remedy these concerns. 2 Background 2.1 Following the closure of the hotel in 2010, the building has remained empty and we have periodically fielded questions from members of the public and Members of the House of Keys including Mr Karran, regarding concerns for its condition and its future. You may be aware that Mr Karran has recently requested the opportunity to visit the premises. 2.2 Following difficulties in synchronising diaries, I finally gained access to the Castle Mona on Monday 10th 3 June for an inspection. Having done so, I have some concerns set out in the following report. Policy and Legal Implications 3.1 Schedule 7 Compulsory Acquisition of Building in Need of Repair of The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states:

1. If it appears to the Department that reasonable steps are not being taken for properly preserving a registered building, the Department may serve on the owner of the building a notice (a ‘repairs notice’)-

(a) specifying the works which the Department considers reasonably necessary for the proper preservation of the building;

4 Building Condition 4.1 In terms of the period that I have been accessing the building to monitor its condition, the condition of the building has not deteriorated dramatically, but it is deteriorating and this will naturally accelerate with time and a continued lack

2 of maintenance. 4.2 In terms of the building’s overall condition; the majority of the Ground Floor is OK with relatively minor sections of modern ceiling down in the former bar area at the rear (more than likely related to leaking heating pipes). The worst of the damage has occurred on the upper floors, closest to the roof. The top floor looks the worst as carpets have been taken up as they were holding water, further sections of ceiling are down and finishes are hanging off the walls, no doubt a result of water penetration. Furniture piled up in rooms adds to the sense of disarray. 4.3 The Caretaker, has ‘drained down’ the building i.e. there is no water in any of the radiators and associated pipework that can cause damage via leaks. 4.4 It is also evident from the exterior that windows have been boarded up. The Caretaker informed me that he had undertaken these works as children have been in the building, most notably during TT last year when the police were called.
4.5 I also understand that the Police and Fire Brigade are using the building for training with some doors literally smashed in and the resultant damage inflicted upon the door frames. Thankfully, the doors in question are all modern, but again, this all adds to the impression of untidiness and neglect. 4.6 To the non-professional, the current condition of the interior might appear to be far worse than is actually the case. However, I do have concerns about the condition of the building which need addressing (see below). 5 Historic Interest 5.1 It is clear that the Castle Mona has been the subject of numerous alterations over the years which in my view have reduced the historic interest of the interior. Modern plasterboard partitions subdivide its historic plan form providing hotel bedrooms and en-suites which cannot be considered to add to the building’s historic interest.
5.2 The main remaining areas of historic interest are the Wedgewood Room, the Ball Room and former Dining Room located at the front of the building on the Ground Floor. The Ball Room and the Wedgewood Room have high quality painted interiors (notably the ceiling of the Ball Room) with applied plasterwork to the walls of the Wedgewood Room. It is clear, that there is some deterioration to the ceilings in these two rooms, and the buckets on the floor in the Ball Room indicate leaks from above. 5.3 The two extensions in the left and right hand ‘wings’ are not included in the registration (see attached registration plan). 6 Discussions regarding redevelopment

3 6.1 Numerous discussions have taken place with various architectural companies since the hotel’s closure, most recently in April this year. Whilst I have worked with these companies to redevelop the Castle Mona, the Department does have a duty to ensure that the Registered Building is maintained. I believe we are at a point where we could be accused of not protecting the building in line with its Registered Building status and the Department’s duty to do so. 6.2 The Division is aware that the have proposals (underwritten by the Department of Economic Development) to open an ICT based University in the premises. Given this context, Mr Skelly is asked to determine whether he has a conflict of interest. 7 The way forward 7.1 After the Castle Mona hotel closed down, we were approached by architects working for and on behalf of the owners who sought to strip out the building.
At the time, the concern was that the hotel use would disappear with the strip out and the building could lay empty for some time. As time has passed, the potential for re-use of the

[Response truncated — full text is 30,259 characters]